McGee v The King

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by John Andrew McGee. McGee, along with a co-accused William Hansen, had been convicted in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on charges including attempted theft and being in a building with intent to commit a crime. The appeal arose from the admission of a deposition made by one Edward Marley, who had since died, during the trial.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether special leave to appeal should be granted in a criminal matter where the admissibility of evidence was challenged on technical grounds. Specifically, the applicant argued that Marley's deposition was inadmissible under statutory provisions relating to the admission of depositions, due to alleged failures to comply with certain legal requirements. The Crown contended that the deposition was admissible, particularly given McGee's alleged admission that Marley had told the truth after being present and cross-examining the deponent.

The High Court, in refusing special leave, applied the well-established principle that it will not grant leave to appeal in criminal matters unless substantial and grave injustice has been done, either through a disregard of legal process or a violation of natural justice. The Court found that the admission of the deposition, even if potentially inadmissible on technical grounds, did not meet this threshold for substantial and grave injustice, especially in light of the evidence that the accused had admitted the truth of the statement. The Court affirmed that the admission of the deposition, in these circumstances, did not constitute a grave injustice warranting appellate intervention.